DOCSLIB.ORG

Transgenic Animals

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Transgenic Animals IQP – 43 - DSA - 3001 IQP – 43 - DSA - 1845 IQP – 43 - DSA - 6882 IQP – 43 - DSA - 0994 TRANSGENIC ANIMALS An Interactive Qualifying Project Report Submitted to the Faculty of WORCESTER POLYTECHNIC INSTITUTE In partial fulfillment of the requirement for the Degree of Bachelor of Science By: _______________ _______________ _______________ _______________ Marcella Corcoran Nicholas Maloney Whitney Moore Sara Munro August 25, 2004 APPROVED: ______________________ Prof. David S. Adams, Ph.D. Project Advisor 1 ABSTRACT Transgenic animals are animals that have been genetically altered by inserting a transgene into their genomes to express a new trait. This IQP provides an overview of the construction of transgenic animals, the categories they fall into, and notable examples of each type. The effects of this new technology on both science and society were investigated by describing current ethical and legal debates. Finally, conclusions were formulated based on our research. 2 TABLE OF CONTENTS Page Signature Page…………………………………………………………………………………..1 Abstract………………………………………………………………………………………… 2 Table of Contents………………………………………………………………………………..3 Executive Summary……………………………………………………………………………..4 Project Objective………………………………………………………………………………...7 Chapter 1: Transgenic Animal Description and Construction…………………………………..8 Chapter 2: Transgenic Animal Classification and Examples…………………………………..18 Chapter 3: Transgenic Ethics…………………………………………………………………...37 Chapter 4: Transgenic Legalities……………………………………………………………….57 Chapter 5: Conclusions…………………………………………………………………………67 Bibliography……………………………………………………………………………………70 3 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Transgenic animals are animals that have had their DNA genetically transformed to express or mimic a useful feature that is not normally expressed in that species. Scientists have a wide variety of reasons for wanting to create genetically altered animals that not only affect science but also society. There are five main categories of transgenic animals. The first category, disease models, includes animals such as Alzheimer’s mouse, AIDS Mouse, and OncoMouse™ that are engineered to mimic some aspect of a human disease. These animals provide models for investigating disease mechanisms and potential cures. The second category, transpharmers, includes animals engineered to express protein drugs or antibiotics in their milk. These animals provide a convenient source for new medications with no animal sacrifice. This category includes such models as Baby Herman (the world’s first transgenic cow, whose female offspring provide the first successful bovine transpharmer) and the Genzyme goats. These animals provide new sources for drugs we normally synthetically produce. The third category is the xenotransplanters that are engineered to produce organs compatible with humans. The fourth category is transgenic food sources, that include animals like Superpig and Superfish that are engineered to be larger than normal. The last group of transgenics include the scientific models that teach us something new about a specific protein’s function in vivo. Each group contains animals that have brought both positives as well as negatives to science and society. The main question surrounding transgenic animals is that now that we have the knowledge and technology to create these animals, should we? As is typical of any new powerful technology, its affects on society are far reaching. The creation of transgenic animals raises many ethical debates. While some see the technology negatively as tampering with life and trying to play God, others are very optimistic and see these animals as extremely beneficial 4 to human life. Many religions and animal rights activists frown upon genetically altering an animal, even in those cases where it is for the good of the human race. These groups show concerns with the creation, maintenance, usage, and suffering of these animals. For example, with the OncoMouse™, the mouse is induced with cancer, but its suffering provided huge advancements for the treatment and diagnosis of cancer in humans. On the other hand, in the case of the Superpig, the animal suffered greatly and was sacrificed; its original purpose was for healthier meat. Ethically, these two animals pose different views even though each animal has a transgenic alteration and both animals suffered. The OncoMouse™ suffered for a good cause and advanced the medical community, and the Superpig suffered as an unsuccessful food source, making the OncoMouse™ a more positive experiment. These two examples demonstrate why ethics must be determined by keeping the purpose and success in mind. Following the research performed for this IQP, we authors feel that each transgenic category serves a unique purpose, and therefore the ethics surrounding these animals must be considered on a case by case basis. We believe that in those specific cases where there is strong documented medical benefit, with little or no animal suffering, transgenic technology should be supported, but not in those cases with no clearly documented medical benefit. Transgenic technology also has legal ramifications. Harvard and Dupont’s OncoMouse™ is the world’s first patented animal, having received patents in the U.S. and several European countries. However, not all countries agree that animals can be patented; the OncoMouse™ patent case has recently been rejected in Canada. Although the Canadian case involved many appeals, it was eventually the decision of the courts that the oncomouse is not an invention, but an unpatentable higher life form. In the U.S., the case raised so many key issues that amendments were issued to the U.S. law to oversee and govern the creation, usage, and treatment 5 of transgenic animals. Presently, the United States patent laws allow the patenting of animals as long as the new creation remains “non-obvious” compared with former creations. “A definition of what is non-obvious in the eyes of the court has been explained to include something that a hypothetical worker of the relevant field, devoid whatsoever of any imagination and inventive capacity, though infinitely knowledgeable of and versed in the prior art and the common knowledge of the relevant field, could never have produced” (James, 2001). The writers of this IQP deem many of the categories these animals fall under as acceptable and beneficial to humans. However, it is important to set rules and regulations to ensure that these animals are created using proper techniques and to ensure that they do not suffer in any way. It is our opinion that transgenic animals will have a bright future in science as well as society. 6 PROJECT OBJECTIVE The objective of this project was to explore the new technology of transgenic animals, and investigate its effects on science and society. In order to reach this goal, we first needed to form a strong background on the topic. So we began by researching what a transgenic animal was and how they were created. After building a solid foundation of understanding, we studied the different categories of transgenic animals as well as the contributions and uses of each. In turn, our investigation moved towards the many ethical and legal debates that surround these animals. This project allowed us to understand how scientific breakthroughs can affect much in our daily lives and have so many different views. 7 CHAPTER 1: WHAT IS A TRANSGENIC ANIMAL? Nicholas Maloney and Sara Munro The term transgenic animal refers to an animal in which there has been a deliberate modification of the genome, usually to insert a foreign gene. In biology, the genome of an organism represents an entire set of chromosomes; for example, one of the two sets that a diploid individual carries in every somatic cell. Foreign DNA is introduced into the animal, using recombinant DNA technology, and then must be transmitted through the germ line so that every cell, including germ cells, of the adult animal contain the same modified genetic material. Recombinant DNA technology is a body of techniques for cutting apart and splicing together different pieces of DNA. When segments of foreign DNA are transferred into another cell or organism, the protein that gene encodes may be produced along with substances encoded by the native genetic material of the cell or organism. Thus, these animals become "factories" for the production of the protein encoded by the inserted DNA. Transgenic History Before the development of molecular genetics, the only way of studying the regulation and function of mammalian genes was through the observation of inherited characteristics or spontaneous mutations. Long before Mendel and any molecular genetic knowledge, selective breeding was a common practice among farmers for the enhancement of chosen traits, i.e., increased milk production. The first chimeric mice were produced during the 1970s (Brinster, 1990). A chimera is an organism that contains a mixture of genetically different cells (i.e. some transgenic, some 8 not). The cells of two different embryos of different strains of mice were combined together at an early stage of development (the eight cell stage) to form a single embryo that later developed into a chimeric adult. The adult was chimeric because it exhibited characteristics of each strain of the two original embryos. The combined contributions of developmental biology and genetic engineering permitted a quick development of the techniques used for the creation of transgenic animals. DNA microinjection was the first transgenic technique to prove successful in mammals.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Backyard Farming and Slaughtering 2 Keeping Tradition Safe
    Backyard farming and slaughtering 2 Keeping tradition safe FOOD SAFETY TECHNICAL TOOLKIT FOR ASIA AND THE PACIFIC Backyard farming and slaughtering – Keeping tradition safe Backyard farming and slaughtering 2 Keeping tradition safe FOOD SAFETY TECHNICAL TOOLKIT FOR ASIA AND THE PACIFIC Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations Bangkok, 2021 FAO. 2021. Backyard farming and slaughtering – Keeping tradition safe. Food safety technical toolkit for Asia and the Pacific No. 2. Bangkok. The designations employed and the presentation of material in this information product do not imply the expression of any opinion whatsoever on the part of the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO) concerning the legal or development status of any country, territory, city or area or of its authorities, or concerning the delimitation of its frontiers or boundaries. The mention of specific companies or products of manufacturers, whether or not these have been patented, does not imply that these have been endorsed or recommended by FAO in preference to others of a similar nature that are not mentioned. © FAO, 2021 Some rights reserved. This work is made available under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 3.0 IGO license (CC BY-NC-SA 3.0 IGO; https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/3.0/igo). Under the terms of this license, this work may be copied, redistributed and adapted for non- commercial purposes, provided that the work is appropriately cited. In any use of this work, there should be no suggestion that FAO endorses any specific organization, products or services. The use of the FAO logo is not permitted.
    [Show full text]
  • ANIMAL SACRIFICE in ANCIENT MESOPOTAMIAN RELIGION The
    CHAPTER FOURTEEN ANIMAL SACRIFICE IN ANCIENT MESOPOTAMIAN RELIGION JOANN SCURLOCK The relationship between men and gods in ancient Mesopotamia was cemented by regular offerings and occasional sacrifices of ani­ mals. In addition, there were divinatory sacrifices, treaty sacrifices, and even "covenant" sacrifices. The dead, too, were entitled to a form of sacrifice. What follows is intended as a broad survey of ancient Mesopotamian practices across the spectrum, not as an essay on the developments that must have occurred over the course of several millennia of history, nor as a comparative study of regional differences. REGULAR OFFERINGS I Ancient Mesopotamian deities expected to be fed twice a day with­ out fail by their human worshipers.2 As befitted divine rulers, they also expected a steady diet of meat. Nebuchadnezzar II boasts that he increased the offerings for his gods to new levels of conspicuous consumption. Under his new scheme, Marduk and $arpanitum were to receive on their table "every day" one fattened ungelded bull, fine long fleeced sheep (which they shared with the other gods of Baby1on),3 fish, birds,4 bandicoot rats (Englund 1995: 37-55; cf. I On sacrifices in general, see especially Dhorme (1910: 264-77) and Saggs (1962: 335-38). 2 So too the god of the Israelites (Anderson 1992: 878). For specific biblical refer­ ences to offerings as "food" for God, see Blome (1934: 13). To the term tamid, used of this daily offering in Rabbinic sources, compare the ancient Mesopotamian offering term gimi "continual." 3 Note that, in the case of gods living in the same temple, this sharing could be literal.
    [Show full text]
  • Theories of Sacrifice and Ritual
    UC Davis UC Davis Previously Published Works Title Inventing the Scapegoat: Theories of Sacrifice and Ritual Permalink https://escholarship.org/uc/item/055689pg Journal Journal of Ritual Studies, 25(1) Author Janowitz, Naomi Publication Date 2011 Peer reviewed eScholarship.org Powered by the California Digital Library University of California Inventing the Scapegoat: Theories of Sacrifice and Ritual No figure appears in studies of sacrifice more often than the scapegoat. Numerous societies, the argument goes, have a seemingly innate need to purge sins via an innocent victim. The killing of this victim constitutes the core of sacrifice traditions; explaining the efficacy of these rites outlines in turn the inner workings of all sacrifices, if not all rituals. I do not believe, however, that the enigmatic figure of the scapegoat can support a universal theory of sacrifice, especially if the general term “scapegoat” turns out refer to a variety of rituals with very different goals. Rene Girard’s extremely influential theory of the scapegoat includes a biological basis for the importance of the figure (Girard, 1977). According to Girard, humans are naturally aggressive, a la Konrad Lorenz. This innate aggression was channeled into an unending series of attacks and counterattacks during the earliest periods of history. A better outlet for aggression was to find a scapegoat whose death would stop the cycle of retribution (p. 2). For Girard, Oedipus was a human scapegoat, placing this model 2 at the center of Greek culture in addition to Biblical religious traditions (p. 72). Jonathan Smith’s observations on Girard’s model in “The Domestication of Sacrifice” are both simple and devastating (1987).
    [Show full text]
  • Euthanasia of Experimental Animals
    EUTHANASIA OF EXPERIMENTAL ANIMALS • *• • • • • • • *•* EUROPEAN 1COMMISSIO N This document has been prepared for use within the Commission. It does not necessarily represent the Commission's official position. A great deal of additional information on the European Union is available on the Internet. It can be accessed through the Europa server (http://europa.eu.int) Cataloguing data can be found at the end of this publication Luxembourg: Office for Official Publications of the European Communities, 1997 ISBN 92-827-9694-9 © European Communities, 1997 Reproduction is authorized, except for commercial purposes, provided the source is acknowledged Printed in Belgium European Commission EUTHANASIA OF EXPERIMENTAL ANIMALS Document EUTHANASIA OF EXPERIMENTAL ANIMALS Report prepared for the European Commission by Mrs Bryony Close Dr Keith Banister Dr Vera Baumans Dr Eva-Maria Bernoth Dr Niall Bromage Dr John Bunyan Professor Dr Wolff Erhardt Professor Paul Flecknell Dr Neville Gregory Professor Dr Hansjoachim Hackbarth Professor David Morton Mr Clifford Warwick EUTHANASIA OF EXPERIMENTAL ANIMALS CONTENTS Page Preface 1 Acknowledgements 2 1. Introduction 3 1.1 Objectives of euthanasia 3 1.2 Definition of terms 3 1.3 Signs of pain and distress 4 1.4 Recognition and confirmation of death 5 1.5 Personnel and training 5 1.6 Handling and restraint 6 1.7 Equipment 6 1.8 Carcass and waste disposal 6 2. General comments on methods of euthanasia 7 2.1 Acceptable methods of euthanasia 7 2.2 Methods acceptable for unconscious animals 15 2.3 Methods that are not acceptable for euthanasia 16 3. Methods of euthanasia for each species group 21 3.1 Fish 21 3.2 Amphibians 27 3.3 Reptiles 31 3.4 Birds 35 3.5 Rodents 41 3.6 Rabbits 47 3.7 Carnivores - dogs, cats, ferrets 53 3.8 Large mammals - pigs, sheep, goats, cattle, horses 57 3.9 Non-human primates 61 3.10 Other animals not commonly used for experiments 62 4.
    [Show full text]
  • Actant Stories and the Australian Xenotransplantation Network
    Constructing and Fracturing Alliances: Actant Stories and the Australian Xenotransplantation Network Copyright - Neil Leslie, Wellcome Images; reproduced with permission Peta S. Cook BPhoto; BSocSc (Sociol.) (hons.) Humanities Research Program Queensland University of Technology Submitted in full requirement for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy 2008 “The XWP [Xenotransplantation Working Party] agree that, in retrospect, a sociologist would have been a useful addition to the group to help understand these issues” (Xenotransplantation Working Party 2004: 14, emphasis added). - i - Keywords sociology; xenotransplantation; transplantation; allotransplantation; actor-network theory; science and technology studies; public understanding of science (PUS); critical public understanding of science (critical PUS); scientific knowledge; public consultation; risk; animals - ii - Abstract Xenotransplantation (XTP; animal-to-human transplantation) is a controversial technology of contemporary scientific, medical, ethical and social debate in Australia and internationally. The complexities of XTP encompass immunology, immunosuppression, physiology, technology (genetic engineering and cloning), microbiology, and animal/human relations. As a result of these controversies, the National Health and Medical Research Council (NHMRC), Australia, formed the Xenotransplantation Working Party (XWP) in 2001. The XWP was designed to advise the NHMRC on XTP, if and how it should proceed in Australia, and to provide draft regulatory guidelines. During the period
    [Show full text]
  • Re/Considering Sacrifice, Incarnation and Divine Animality
    Animal Studies Journal Volume 8 Number 2 Article 11 2019 Disturbing Animals in a Christian Perspective: Re/Considering Sacrifice, Incarnation and Divine Animality Nekeisha Alayna Alexis Anabaptist Mennonite Biblical Seminary / Independent Scholar, [email protected] Follow this and additional works at: https://ro.uow.edu.au/asj Part of the Agricultural and Resource Economics Commons, Art and Design Commons, Art Practice Commons, Australian Studies Commons, Communication Commons, Creative Writing Commons, Digital Humanities Commons, Education Commons, English Language and Literature Commons, Feminist, Gender, and Sexuality Studies Commons, Film and Media Studies Commons, Fine Arts Commons, Legal Studies Commons, Linguistics Commons, Philosophy Commons, Political Science Commons, Public Health Commons, Race, Ethnicity and Post-Colonial Studies Commons, Sociology Commons, and the Theatre and Performance Studies Commons Recommended Citation Alexis, Nekeisha Alayna, Disturbing Animals in a Christian Perspective: Re/Considering Sacrifice, Incarnation and Divine Animality, Animal Studies Journal, 8(2), 2019, 154-174. Available at:https://ro.uow.edu.au/asj/vol8/iss2/11 Research Online is the open access institutional repository for the University of Wollongong. For further information contact the UOW Library: [email protected] Disturbing Animals in a Christian Perspective: Re/Considering Sacrifice, Incarnation and Divine Animality Abstract What does Christianity say about other animals? For many people, Jesus-followers and others alike,
    [Show full text]
  • CRISPR and the Future of Fertility Innovation
    Science and Technology Law Review Volume 23 Number 1 Article 3 2020 CRISPR and the Future of Fertility Innovation June R. Carbone University of Minnesota Law School, [email protected] Follow this and additional works at: https://scholar.smu.edu/scitech Part of the Health Law and Policy Commons, and the Science and Technology Law Commons Recommended Citation June R Carbone, CRISPR and the Future of Fertility Innovation, 23 SMU SCI. & TECH. L. REV. 31 (2020) https://scholar.smu.edu/scitech/vol23/iss1/3 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Law Journals at SMU Scholar. It has been accepted for inclusion in Science and Technology Law Review by an authorized administrator of SMU Scholar. For more information, please visit http://digitalrepository.smu.edu. CRISPR and the Future of Fertility Innovation June Carbone* In 2018, Dr. He Jiankui announced that he had used CRISPR, a gene- editing tool, to produce newborn twin girls with the gene for HIV resistance.1 The announcement caused a global uproar. Dr. He appeared to have tried the procedure without advance testing.2 He did so without assurance the proce- dure was safe; indeed, unintended side effects could affect not only the twins but the twins’ own offspring.3 And he did it to otherwise healthy embryos.4 While the twins risked exposure to the HIV virus their father carried, less risky treatments exist that reduce the risk of transmission.5 Dr. He also tried the technique without following appropriate Chinese protocols.6 As a result of the outcry that followed his announcement, use of the procedure in China has been effectively shut down.7 This leaves open the question: if CRISPR is to be used again in the reproductive context, how and why is it to occur? CRISPR creates new possibilities for genetic engineering, which alters a person’s—or an embryo’s—genetic inheritance in ways that alter the germline, in turn passing on the alterations to subsequent generations.
    [Show full text]
  • CRISPR Technology; Advantages, Limitations and Future Direction
    nd Ph l a arm Omodamilola and Ibrahim, J Biomed Pharm Sci 2018, 1:2 a a ic c d e e u m t i o c Journal of i a B l S f o c l i e a n n c r e u s o J Biomedical and Pharmaceutical Sciences Review Article Open Access CRISPR Technology: Advantages, Limitations and Future Direction Omoyayi Ibrahim Omodamilola* and Abdullahi Umar Ibrahim Department of Biomedical Engineering, Near East University, Mersin 10, Turkey Abstract The evolutionary discovery of CRIPRS technology has paved the way for researchers in various fields’ genetics, medicine, pharmacy and computer science. Its potential application is limitless spanning from therapy of disease such as cancer and immunotherapy with gene silencing, gene knock down, gene KO, to the food production of genetically modified foods, the potential possibility of genetically designing baby using CRSIPR technology with enhanced trait and potential of eradicating Malaria and HIV-AIDS. The review thereby focuses on Off-targets limitation of the technology which is explained as one of the major constraint for application in clinical procedure with its hope of eradication through machine learning (ML). Further application of crisper technology was also discussed. Keywords: CRISPR; Designer Baby; Machine Learning; Off Targets; of an adaptive immune system and the discovery of Cas9 and PAM by Gene Knock out Bolotin. The process where bacterial CRISPR transcribed a guide RNA and form CRISPR-Cas9 Complex which not only store a record of Introduction invading bacteriophages and other viral DNA but also to destroy the The word “smart” has been the recent trend in almost all viruses upon second attack [6].
    [Show full text]
  • 1 Designer Babies
    Designer Babies: The Ethical and Societal Effects Andy Kromer College of Saint Benedict/Saint John’s University April 17, 2018 It’s a process; It dates back to 12,000 BC when human beings started domesticating animals. Unknowingly, at the time, we participated in an act of science: genetic modification. It is a process in which humans influence the genes of another specie. Many believe this process is the same as genetic engineering; however, there is a difference. Genetic engineering is defined as the artificial modification or manipulation of an organism’s nucleic acids or DNA. The difference is the matter in which the genes are manipulated. Through genetic modification, natural changes are made to a specie, while through genetic engineering, tools or technologies are used to modify or manipulate a certain gene. The process of genetic engineering isn’t natural. This is a key component that set these two terms apart, but they are very similar nonetheless. Background: Genetic Engineering Genetic engineering was first introduced nearly fifty years ago by Herbert Boyer and Stanley Cohen. At first, this technology was used on plants to increase the yield values of certain farm crops. Undoubtedly, it has provided a great advancement in the economy. Brookes and Barfoot (2014) found that since the first significant amounts of genetically modified crops were planted in 1996, there has been more than one hundred and sixty-six billion dollars generated from the agriculture industry. The production levels have also increased substantially. The success of GMOs and genetic engineering has sparked curiosity in the United States.
    [Show full text]
  • Are We Ready for Designer Babies? Analysis of Law, Policy and Ethics Surrounding Germline Genetic Engineering
    MUMBAI SILICON VALLEY BANGALORE SINGAPORE MUMBAI BKC NEW DELHI MUNICH NEW YORK Are we ready for Designer Babies? Analysis of law, policy and ethics surrounding germline genetic engineering Strategic, Legal, Tax and Ethical issues June 2019 © Copyright 2019 Nishith Desai Associates www.nishithdesai.com Are we ready for Designer Babies? Analysis of law, policy and ethics surrounding germline genetic engineering Strategic, Legal, Tax and Ethical Issues June 2019 [email protected] DMS Code: No 480049v2 © Nishith Desai Associates 2019 Are we ready for Designer Babies? Analysis of law, policy and ethics surrounding germline genetic engineering About NDA At Nishith Desai Associates, we have earned the reputation of being Asia’s most Innovative Law Firm – and the go-to specialists for companies around the world, looking to conduct businesses in India and for Indian companies considering business expansion abroad. In fact, we have conceptualized and created a state-of-the-art Blue Sky Thinking and Research Campus, Imaginarium Aligunjan, an international institution dedicated to designing a premeditated future with an embedded strategic foresight capability. We are a research and strategy driven international firm with offices in Mumbai, Palo Alto (Silicon Valley), Bangalore, Singapore, New Delhi, Munich, and New York. Our team comprises of specialists who provide strategic advice on legal, regulatory, and tax related matters in an integrated manner basis key insights carefully culled from the allied industries. As an active participant in shaping India’s regulatory environment, we at NDA, have the expertise and more importantly – the VISION – to navigate its complexities. Our ongoing endeavors in conducting and facilitating original research in emerging areas of law has helped us develop unparalleled proficiency to anticipate legal obstacles, mitigate potential risks and identify new opportunities for our clients on a global scale.
    [Show full text]
  • Practice of Animal Sacrifice and Religious Discrimination in The
    religions Article The “Abhorrent” Practice of Animal Sacrifice and Religious Discrimination in the Global South Danielle N. Boaz Africana Studies Department, University of North Carolina at Charlotte, Garinger 133, 9201 University City Blvd., Charlotte, NC 28223, USA; [email protected] Received: 31 January 2019; Accepted: 26 February 2019; Published: 6 March 2019 Abstract: In September 2018, the majority Buddhist government of Sri Lanka approved draft legislation banning animal sacrifice at Hindu Temples. The Cabinet referred to these sacrifices as a “primitive” practice that can cause physical and mental harm to society. Similarly, the Federal Supreme Court of Brazil is presently evaluating the constitutionality of a proposed bill banning animal sacrifice in the state of Rio Grande do Sul. Proponents of this bill argue that animal rights supersede the religious freedom of the adherents of Afro-Brazilian faiths who perform these sacrifices. They further contend that the practice of animal sacrifice poses a threat to public health. Through the evaluation of these cases, this article will consider the relationship between animal sacrifice and religious freedom in the Global South. Using Brazil and Sri Lanka as examples, it will explore how laws and litigation protecting animal welfare can often be a guise for racial discrimination and religious intolerance. Keywords: Brazil; Sri Lanka; religious freedom; animal sacrifice; religious intolerance Introduction In September of 2014, the High Court of Himachal Pradesh in India wrote a 110-page decision banning the practice of animal sacrifice in the jurisdiction. The Justices described these ritual slaughters as “abhorrent and dastardly,” and argued that new rites “which are based on reasoning and scientific temper” should supplant “superstitions” that have no place “in the modern era of reasoning.” (Sharma et al.
    [Show full text]
  • The Regulation of Animal Movement in the American City
    University at Buffalo School of Law Digital Commons @ University at Buffalo School of Law Journal Articles Faculty Scholarship Fall 2013 Animal Mobilegalities: The Regulation of Animal Movement in the American City Irus Braverman University at Buffalo School of Law Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalcommons.law.buffalo.edu/journal_articles Part of the Law and Society Commons Recommended Citation Irus Braverman, Animal Mobilegalities: The Regulation of Animal Movement in the American City, 5 Humanimalia 104 (2013). Available at: https://digitalcommons.law.buffalo.edu/journal_articles/324 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Faculty Scholarship at Digital Commons @ University at Buffalo School of Law. It has been accepted for inclusion in Journal Articles by an authorized administrator of Digital Commons @ University at Buffalo School of Law. For more information, please contact [email protected]. H U M a N I M A L I A 5:1 Irus Braverman Animal Mobileg alities: The Regulation of Animal Movement in the American City Introduction. Humans purposefully bring certain animals into the city where they care for them: dogs and cats in the home, chickens and goats in the yard, and elephants and tigers in the zoo. Some animals escape their designated spaces and survive in the city to breed, such as monk parakeets in New York. Humans living in cities also intentionally create habitats for certain animals: hummingbirds, ospreys, trout, and bass. Still other animals — bedbugs, pigeons, Norway rats, gulls, squirrels, and Canadian geese, to name a few — come to the city uninvited and thrive in the urban habitat.
    [Show full text]